Yes, I agree with Derek, "Big Fish" redux does not sound good at all. Sasha Stone and Kris Tapley seemed to love it though. I wonder if it will get into the Best Picture line-up because of it's budget and stars, and frankly there doesn't seem to be much competition in that category up to this point.

anon -- i have nothing negative to say about cate blanchett's performance other than that I don't really understand the Oscar hype. she's good but i highly doubt you'd be hearing any Oscar buzz if her name wasn't spelled c-a-t-e b-l-a-n-c-h-e-t-t

i guess i should amend my comments to say that a nomination wouldn't surprise me now given who she is and the latex thing (oscar voters do tend to love that) but Kris's notion that she could win is completely shocking to me now that I've seen the movie.

why?

or rather ... why when Kate Winslet will certainly be in the mix? I think Streep's third win is more likely than Blanchett's second.

Nathaniel, aren't you fed up of accusations of hating Cate Blanchett? Well, not accusations maybe, but there are many bloggers who are convinced that you dislike her.Actually I've never seen any bad reviews on her performances here. I suppose "Notes on a scandal" don't count because you were just saying she was miscast in the role.

i have yet to see the film, nat, so i cannot really say i agree with you on the cate blanchett comment.

as for the movie itself, if it is being compared to "forrest gump", i am not thrilled at all. i didn't think that movie was terrific. however, i did like "big fish".

and going back to cate, i am just intrigued when you said that her nominations remind you of the emmys where the same actors are nominated year after year and that shouldn't be the case. let me go theoretical here. if meryl streep was nominated one year after the other for her exceptional performances, say in "The Bridges of Madison County", "Adaptation" "The Devil Wears Prada", "A Cry in the Dark", etc., would you feel the same?i hope i am getting my point across clearly. i am sleepy.

oh nat, i love you dearly and i value your reviews more than any other writer's, but don't blame some of your readers for thinking that you have a LOT against cate blanchett. i am sensing it again here. it is actually the way you phrase your thoughts about her that gives you away. while you have the kindest words for nicole kidman, you can't seem to find the positive adjectives for cate. poor cate. she is actually one of this generation's best actresses, along with kate winslet and julianne moore, but she is just so maligned in your blog. poor, poor cate. ;)

i have developed negative feelings for her but those negative feelings are mostly based on how wildly irrational her fanbase can be. I don't think i've ever seen anything like it.

For instance: you can't even pay Cate a compliment without her fans complaining that you haven't complimented her sufficiently. This has happened to me on repeated ocassions.

Another example: ever notice how people are always acting like Cate is overdue and that she is owed? It's as if she didn't win that Oscar in February 2005. Most actors would kill to win even one and most fans would die of joy to have their favorite win even one. But clearly her fans will never be satisfied unless she has a stamp, 4 Oscars and perhaps statues in major parks.

I believe that the sad thing is that it is not Cate Blanchett's fault that her fans complain too much. Sadly the negative feelings generated by her fans may have affected your objectivity towards her. Since you are a film critic, don't you think your judgment should be clouded by pushy fans? How can you say that you are judging her performance without being affected by these negative feelings?

I hope you do not mind me asking because this is not just about Cate Blanchett, but I feel that this tells your readers as to how you review a performance and even a film. I usually read your reviews before I decide whether I should watch a film or not. Do you get my drift?

Nate has been 100% honest on which acresses he loves and Blanchett is not one of them. That is we why his comments are without any sentiment. That doesn't mean he is more harsh on her. He HAS given her credit in the past. And look at what he said about Streep. His love for her is known since forever but his opinion on her performance was not very warm. By that logic, does he dislike Streep as well?

Sorry Nathaniel, I know you don't want the Cate Blanchett discussion to continue, as discussion should really be about the WHOLE film, but I think the reason her manic fans think she is overdue is because they see her Aviator win as more about Kate Hepburn than Cate Blanchett, so they want to see her rewarded for a role which she has created herself. That and the fact that she has n't got a LEAD oscar yet (a PROPER ONE!!)

Anyway Nathaniel, I know its a samll role but what did you think of Tilda in the film?

Not to step on Nathaniel's toes here or, for that matter, any of the rabid & red-fanged Cate B. freaks, but I thought her performance in I'm Not There was laughably bad. (And I mean that literally... I laughed and laughed whenever she was on screen.)

I understand I'm in the minority in that opinion b/c I mentioned that sentiment at an Oscar party last year and was nearly shouted out the door by some real world Cate B. freaks.

not ecstatic about this film even if it has a topnotch cast. maybe i will watch it, maybe i will not. i am waiting for your review of this film.

nat, is it true that not all the films scheduled to be shown this year have yet to be screened for the press and the critics? if this true, how come the golden satellites have already released their nominations?

You're right about the Cate Blanchett fan base Nathaniel. And if you said that she was miscast in Notes on a scandal, you're right about that too. I don't consider Blanchett to be this incredible, heart-stopping beauty and that they describe in Notes or The Good German. She has a rather unorthodox attractiveness a la Meryl Streep. I think Kate Beckinsale looks wise would be more appropriate in those roles.

I'm not the biggest fan of Blanchett's work (I find her a little to technical) but you can't deny the talent.

anon 6:08 it's an honest question you ask. and while it's true that you shouldn't let off-movie things affect your feelings about a movie I think that that is to some extent impossible... at least in the 100% way. We don't live in vacuums.

I never hide my "favorites". All critics have them but many people don't share what things they are naturally drawn to which I think is a shame. So i know i get a lot of "he's biased!" negativity around the net because of this but I'm OK with that. It's a trade off I accept.

If people don't know that everyone has things they're naturally drawn to and things they're naturally not... then I am not sure they've really examined their own response to things.

I'm never going to pretend I don't love certain genres more than others and certain performers more than others. I'm never going to pretend I like actors as much as actresses. etcetera. Why pretend?

everyone i'll talk about the movie more later obviously... we'll have three months to talk about all through awards season ;) I do think it's a real contender, yes. It's BIG.

I'm really annoyed with her and acting, I mean she's already famous wtf does she want? There are soo many talented Black actresses who don't get roles at all and here she comes stealing potentially good ones with her wooden acting. ugh.

I've never understood not liking someone/something b/c of an overzealous fanbase. That's so ridiculous to me. If you hate something, stand by that on the grounds of just not liking it and be done with it instead of blaming your dislike on others who assessed the work in question more positively than you did. And it's not just here, it's on countless message boards. Yes, I adore Cate Blanchett, but being dismissed as a "Cate freak" and having that cited as a reason for someone else dislikig her work is baffling. Hate her work, not "care" for her work, call her "technical", "ubiquitous", "cold", whatever, I don't care. But hoisting your indifference of her work on her fans' shoulders like that is wrong. Those are your issues, not ours.

Hey, bad news for Anne: Rachel Getting Married is competing in drama at the globes, according to Gold Derby.

So, who gets left out?

BlanchettHathawayJolieKidmanScott ThomasStreepWinslet

Kidman is the easiest to cross off - the globes seem to be over her now - but either Blanchett, Jolie or Hathaway will have to be squeezed out, too. And whichever misses could have a hard time recovering for SAG and Oscar.

i agree sallys lack of competition for the com/mus g globe is puttin her more near lock status,as for drama with 2 nods now melissa leo is beig underestimated,yes blanchett may have good otices but i feel we are being a little diane keaton the family stone here,the film is not about her and the role is not that baity plus are kst chances overestimated.

cate blanchett is a hot topic here. LOL. unfortunately, i agree with some of the readers that your negative feelings (translation: dislike?)over her is unwarranted and unfair. i am not her fan and i do not think she is overdue for another oscar, but i respect her body of work. besides she is what she is right now because a lot of critics find her a great actress. i am sure she doesn't force herself on them.

as for overzealous fans, i cannot believe that you don't find some of nicole kidman's fans the same way. when something negative is hurled against her, some go rabid as well.

//while you have the kindest words for nicole kidman, you can't seem to find the positive adjectives for cate. poor cate. //

Actually, anon 5:27, that isn't true. Re-read Nate "Actress of the Aughts" article - he gives Nicole #1, but almost grudgingly, and basically tells her to "take a vacation". Then there was the press conference for MATW where he said she was like a robot (I saw the footage and just thought she looked bored, pretty much like everyone else except JJL who managed to hide the fact by looking intensely at her husband whenever he was speaking.) There have been times when even I thought he was a "Kidman hater". turns out it was just Kidman fatigue. (Remember he loved Miss Z once upon a time.)

Point being, he HAS been critical of Kidman, he's been honest about her performances from his POV, he's honest about any performance in his opinion. And this is his blog, coming out of his pocket, and ergo HIS opinion. Nate is an online version of the friend who is a cinephile, not a professional and paid "Critic/reviewer" who actually tends to hide their likes/dislikes under the veil of "professionalism" or "objectivity".

Enough of that.

I enjoy these haikus - it's a way for us to get a taste of what he experienced until he has the TIME to write the full review (again I repeat: he's not getting paid to do this) and yes, I too want to know about...Tilda Swinton's perf (or rather her role, how much screentime, etc.)

Big Fish Redux - hmm. I didn't care for that one much except the ending with the father and son, so that doesn't excite me. What is it about these big directors being handed huge chunks of money and told "hey sure, go do whatever you want with almost $200mil"?

nat, i was reading through your blog and you mentioned that cate an academy regular and it seemed to be said . as far as i know, she has only been nominated four times and not even in consecutive years (99 ,05, 07,08). she is not as revered by the academy as we think she is.

kate winslet has been nominated five times (96, 98, 02, 05, 07) and how come she isn't branded a regular?

basically people like MERYL, KATE, CATE, JUDI, PHILIP... etcetera are default nominees... that's the term i use for people the academy will turn to regardless of merit (sometimes deserved, sometimes not) when they aren't particularly enthused about the other prospects... often occurring when the best performances of a given year are in genres they don't like or in films they don't like.

*laughs* Oh come on, fellow Cate B. fans. Way to prove Nathaniel's misgivings about her fans' sense of perspective right. Let's not all jump on the poor guy because he dares to rank some other actresses above the great Cate, okay?

So Nat, considering how often people have been comparing this film to Gump in other reviews, is the comparison to Big Fish deliberate? Do you think it's going to go down that film's way of being hotly anticipated by cruelly (or maybe justifiably) snubbed come Oscar time?

i thought it was definitely more like Big Fish than Forrest Gump in plot / mood / style... at times i even felt the score was very Danny Elfman (though i know it's not Elfman)

but i don't wanna give any spoilers away.

the only way it's like forrest gump is that Benjamin Button is an odd (sorta dim bulb) somewhat passive central role and there's a girl he always loves (cate blanchett's "daisy" being the "jenny" character) and it spans decades and the special effects are similarly groundbreaking...

That term "default nominee" is really pejorative. You're basically saying they're filler that's just there to be there when they're not quite onboard with weird/genre/blockbuster/indie choices, which is perfectly within their rights to do as voters. I remember you calling both PSH for "Charlie Wilson's War" and Cate B. for "The Golden Age" that last year as if those performances had no worth to them when they did. When has a "default nominee" been a deserved one in your eyes?

anon -- you'll never convince me that Cate deserved that nomination for GOLDEN AGE or that Hoffman's shouting in Charlie Wilson's War was some kind of deep performance. sorry.

but re: pejoratives. The term itself is not meant to be. If you follow my "why were they nominated?" percentage charts in any given year (here are examples: 2007, 2006, 2005)you'll see that even when i love the performance I can say it was partially due to who that person is. I didn't pretend that Julie Christie being Julie Christie didn't contribute to her awards run last year just because I love Julie Christie.

I don't know why i can't get a little credit but it seems some people want to be pissed off at me all the time. Not sure why.

A perfect example of a default nominee is MERYL STREEP. It's not a pejorative but they approach every performance of hers expecting to love it. And believe me that helps. It's kind of a lame example but put MERYL STREEP in FROZEN RIVER and pretend she gives the same performance Melissa Leo gave. Guess what? She has a much easier time getting traction.